"Sweetest Corn in Three States" and politics

Shannon Bohrer

(10/2023) Recently, I was driving on U.S. Route 15, traveling south between Luckett’s and Leesburg. There are numerous roadside vegetable stands on that route, and I took notice of one large sign that read "Sweetest Corn in Three States." My first thought was that from the number of vehicles and persons at the stand, it must be good corn. The thought was quickly followed with a smile, thinking of the marketing genius of the proprietor. No one could disprove the sign, which was intentional. Of course, the whole purpose of the sign was to sell sweet corn, and given the number of vehicles and people, it was successful.

Marketing is important to any commercial enterprise selling a product. A good product is a good start, but advertising drives the sales. A very well-known successful advertising executive once gave a speech on successful advertising. In his remarks, he said that half of everything his firm does is successful. When questioned about the remark and the unsuccessful advertising parts, the executive responded that the firm was not sure which parts were not successful and which parts were successful. So, marketing is not an exact science.

In a free market society, advertising is everywhere. We are blasted with television advertising, newspaper sales ads, and even pop-up ads on our electronic devices. While we often complain about the ads, without the ad revenue, many newspapers and electronic news would not exist. Advertising affects our decisions to buy products and engage in services, sometimes more than we understand. Even our political engagements, which party we align with, and the candidates we support are influenced by political marketing.

When politicians run for office, they are selling or marketing themselves as a better product than their competitors. A common marketing tool in politics - is to vote for me because I am not as bad as the other candidate. While this strategy has been around for a long time, recently, it has morphed into divisiveness that often divides voters. Instead of building bridges and connecting people, the intention seems to divide the electorate. It has often been said that politicians promise much but deliver little. Of course, not unlike the sweet corn marketing, politicians have been known to stretch a few facts and sometimes alter the reality.

A well-known and creative example of one successful candidate telling the constituents that he was better than his opponent occurred in Florida in the 1950 senate race. George Samathers, a well-known state politician, defeated the better-known U.S. Senator Claude Pepper in a primary race. It was reported that Smathers gave a speech or wrote an article saying, "Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law, he has a brother who is a known homo sapiens, and he a sister who was once a thespian in New York, Worst of all, it is an established fact the Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced Celibacy."

The wording of this speech has often been questioned. In the 1950’s, television ads were almost unknown, and most political ads were in newspapers or heard on radio programs. Later, Senator Smathers denied that he ever gave the speech, but it was also reported that the speech was given to a radio station by a campaign worker. Either way, Mr. Smathers was successful and went on to win the Senate seat. Of note, the sister, who was reported to be a thespian, later identified herself as the actress. It was also reported in Time magazine that "Smathers had a little speech for cracker voters, who were presumed not to know what the words meant…" They also printed the speech.

Name-calling and attacks on candidates are not unusual, and when asked, people say they do not approve of the tactics, "…yet election results demonstrate that such negative campaigning is frequently successful." In Smathers’ case, at least with the reported speech, he never said anything that was not true, but an argument could be made that the words could be misleading.

The questioning of what is factual and true has become very common in politics. Misleading the public can be deceitful and yet may not include lying. Not giving all the facts, like the meaning of words or unsubstantiated facts, does not always give one a fair representation. Of course, politicians can be deceitful without lying, which is often the intent. Outright lying was thought to be not good for the candidate until the 2016 presidential election. Trump's lies were so frequent that news organizations counted them daily; it did not seem to matter to those who voted for him.

In 2023, when Geroge Santos was elected to Congress from New York, it was only after his election that the numerous lies he told were revealed. George did not just lie; he created an entirely false background for himself. At one time, any elected official who created an alternate self would be sanctioned by his party. That did not happen. You might think that his party would be embarrassed, but they were not. His party ignored him and any press questions about his lack of truth-telling.

"A lie doesn’t become truth, wrong does not become right and evil doesn’t become good just because it’s accepted by a majority." Booker Washington

The lack of rebuke by Santo’s party says as much about the party. Has it become normal and accepted to lie? The former president, who lied repeatedly, is still in good standing with his party, which is becoming normal. Normal because he is charged with serious crimes in four separate cases. He is facing ninety-one felony counts, with a maximum incarceration time of 712 years. Allegedly, his untruthfulness about the previous election and his attempts to subvert the results is why he has been charged. He had also stated that his party should suspend part(s) of the constitution so he could be reinstated as president.

On August 23, a debate was held for eight Republican presidential candidates. The candidates were asked if the former president were the party’s nominee and if he were found guilty of crimes before the election would you vote for him. Six of the eight candidates would vote for him, even if found guilty. The charges against the former president, who wants to suspend part of the constitution, are serious, and yet six of the candidates would still vote for him. What does that say about these candidates?

"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves in the Constitution over someone who burns the constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." - Molly Ivins